![[logo] US EPA](http://www.epa.gov/epafiles/images/logo_epaseal.gif){kind=logo}
Reasons for not completely reorganizing agency in 1983
Q: Why did you and Ruckelshaus not reorganize the agency's structure and reverse some of the Burford administration's decisions, such as the decentralization of the enforcement structure, on your return in 1984?
MR. ALM: People are still arguing about the organization of the agency's functions today. Some people want to centralize the enforcement function. Others want to centralize the media activities. For us, with about an eighteen-month horizon, it would have been madness, with everything else we were trying to do, to try to conduct a major reorganization. If that were to happen, it should have happened at the beginning of the Thomas era, or the Reilly era. Incidentally, GAO concluded that there was no inherent advantage in either a combined or media-related enforcement structure.
In terms of other decisions, we changed the direction of many of the programs - including the Superfund program, which was under a lot of criticism. As I explained previously, we also beefed up the enforcement effort. I would say that, generally, we did not make changes for change's sake, but there were a lot of changes. Reorganizing the enforcement function has not been addressed by any subsequent administrator, either. We'll see whether Carol Browner addresses it. [Subsequent to this interview, Carol Browner decided to combine the enforcement activities in one office.]